Disclaimers offered in advance: it’s The Blaze, so it’s just a smidgen suspect.
But if it’s true, I’m not sure I like this story all that much: The police charged a Utah woman with a “hate crime“ for destroying a “Back the Blue“ sign and quote smirking and “at a deputy in an “intimidating“ manner.
“As I concluded my traffic stop and released the individuals, I observed some of the individuals’ friends approach them and attempt to console them,” the deputy wrote in a probable cause affidavit, the News said.
“I observed one of the friends, later identified to be Lauren Gibson, stomping on a ‘Back the Blue’ sign next to where the traffic stop was conducted, crumble it up in a destructive manner, and throw it into a trash can all while smirking in an intimidating manner towards me,” the deputy added, according the paper.
On the one hand? I’m not going to say there’s not some smidgen of glorious schadenfreude involved in seeing one of these entitled little “progressive“ twerps getting a comeuppance.
On the other?
Think of all the legitimate hate crimes that “Progressive“, under the cover that urban progressive privilege grant them, have carried out over the past 10 or 15 years; James Hodgkinson and his shooting spree against Republicans, the assault on Senator Rand Paul, and for that matter this little list of politically motivated bias crimes that I used to maintain until it stopped being fun, for that matter, among many others.
Distraction of signs and “intimidating“ “smirking“? That’s every election season for every conservative in Saint Paul.
Is it a good thing that, of all of the non-Leftist victims of bias-based assaults in this country, only cops seem to be covered by hate crime laws?
Only cops aren’t covered by hate crime laws. There’s sporadic examples, if any, of them being charged with hate crimes.
Quite generally it’s a bubba here and there who’s done something to a protected class get charged.
In situations like this, the only proper punishment should be nothing more than “an attitude adjustment”. If you know what I mean.
Uh……. I agree that anyone involved in an assault or destruction of property needs to be charged. No argument there.
However the hate ginned up against law enforcement by the left and media (same thing) has resulted in the assassination of numerous police officers.
Perhaps that is why cops are a little touchy.
Your Honor, the defendant kidnapped, raped, murdered, and dismembered the victim, set her parts on fire then pissed on the ashes. He deserves the maximum penalty.
Did he hate her?
Excuse me, Your Honor?
Did the defendant commit the crime because he hated the victim?
Well, no. He’s just a sadistic, cruel, completely rotten human being.
If he didn’t hate her, then it’s no big deal. Case dismissed.
***
The entire idea of ‘hate crimes’ is perverse.
^ it is, its dumb
Joe, it’s okay to be motivated by hate, as long as it is not directed at a group.
In other words:
Did he hate her on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnic origin?
Naw, I just hated her.
You mean it was personal?
Yeah….
Well…., that just saved you six years.
Hate crimes-in the absence of some obvious evidence, in reality it’s asking a judge or jury to be mind-readers, because who else but the alleged perp knows what’s behind his or her actions?
You might think that hate crime laws are perverse if you don’t know the real reason that they exist.
They are created by the state to privilege one group of people over another group of people. The privilege precedes the law, or the law would never have been enacted.
I keep wondering MO, who REALLY has the privilege?
Many years ago I had a “discussion” with a leftist about hate crime penalties. Say you kill a person and get 20 years. Say you kill a gay person because “you hate teh gayz” and get 25 years. Both victims are equally dead. But by giving the killer of the gay victim additional time, that elevates the value of the gay person’s life. If “all men are created equal”, then giving someone more time for such an ephemeral reason as “I don ‘like you because you’re gay” should be unconstitutional. We do have differing degrees of murder, but those are differentiated by the actions of the killer (callous/reckless disregard – 3rd, instant passion/commission of additional felony (2nd) , premeditation (1st), etc.), not their thoughts.
She could not wrap her head around that concept.